Plate tectonics and Pangaea

[Mallon]

Humour me.

 

[birdan]

Yes, but over a period of hundreds of millions of years, not "in the time of Peleg". (Gotta make that distinction around here )

 

[Tinker Grey]

I haven't a clue. That plates move seems without dispute. But, I haven't read much if anything about pangaea. That the continents might have once been one massive continent seems intuitive from looking at a map ... but I haven't read anything about.

Ergo, my vote is "I don't know."

 

[shernren]

Bah. You TE.

(For context to the newcomers: TEs around here have had a notorious tendency, when given a poll, to whine and redefine the poll, swarming for the "Other" option when given one and whinging when it's absent. )

 

[Assyrian]

What there's no 'other' option

Yes there is tons of evidence for both, including measurable movement of the continents (Goodbye Mallon, say hello to shernren when you get there) spreading of ocean floor, and rocks, geological strata and fossils which line up from the sides of the continents that are supposed to have have been joined.

 

[juvenissun]

Humour me.

While I vote a Yes to this question, I also think this question is incomplete, and it may mislead.

This question says nothing about the rate of movement. People either worked on the rate of the ocean spreading, or on other evidences of correlation across continents. But one would need some imagination to put the understanding in these two realms together. On this reguard, there do exist other alternative theories. In other words, even today we have a theory of plate tectonics, we are actually not much better off than we were when the continental drifting was the "theory" (that was in the early 20th Century).

One basic reason for the doubt is the lack of understanding on how does the mantle convection work. In turn, the mantle convection is a problem not only limited to the mantle, but also closely related to the core. And so far, we know neither how does the core work nor why is it there.

So, if anyone thought that the current theory of plate tectonics can be used to prove or disprove something, it is still too early.

 

[Mallon]

This question says nothing about the rate of movement.

That's okay. Where I'm going with this thread, rate of spreading doesn't factor into it.

 

[Assyrian]

While I vote a Yes to this question, I also think this question is incomplete, and it may mislead.

Your name doesn't come up in the poll, hanging chad perhaps? Maybe you should try again.

Mallon: There is a strange shortage on YEC response, only one registered that I can see, and one other registered creationist, perhaps you could post an invite over in their section?

 

[Mallon]

Mallon: There is a strange shortage on YEC response, only one registered that I can see, and one other registered creationist, perhaps you could post an invite over in their section?

Most polls turn out this way, it seems. I won't post in the anti-evolutionary subsection, though, as it is against the rules. We'll just keep bumping this for the next few days and get as many votes as we can.

 

[juvenissun]

Your name doesn't come up in the poll, hanging chad perhaps? Maybe you should try again.

Mallon: There is a strange shortage on YEC response, only one registered that I can see, and one other registered creationist, perhaps you could post an invite over in their section?

So I did it again. Hope it is clear now. Again, my vote is only for the evidences, not for the mechanism or for the process.

Non-biological issues are harder to argue for people without strong background. In other words, biological related issues are easier to argue without too much understanding. I think that may be a major reason for much fewer response from YEC people. It is hard enough to understand plate tectonics. Needless to say to raise questions to against it.

All the literatures people can easily find are articles that illustrated how true is the theory. But think it this way: If it is so true, why are so many people still trying to prove it and are still hesitate to claim it to be a truth rather than a theory? So, if we want to know how many problems still exist with this theory, just trying to count how many research papers are still showing up every year. It is counted by tens, if not hundreds.

 

[Mallon]

All the literatures people can easily find are articles that illustrated how true is the theory. But think it this way: If it is so true, why are so many people still trying to prove it and are still hesitate to claim it to be a truth rather than a theory? So, if we want to know how many problems still exist with this theory, just trying to count how many research papers are still showing up every year. It is counted by tens, if not hundreds.

Let me get this straight. Are you saying that because there is so much research being done on the subject, then plate tectonics must not be "true"? And reciprocally, the less research that is done on a subject, the more "true" it is likely to be?

 

[shernren]

Let me get this straight. Are you saying that because there is so much research being done on the subject, then plate tectonics must not be "true"? And reciprocally, the less research that is done on a subject, the more "true" it is likely to be?

The fact that I have a four-digit IQ has never been experimentally studied or verified.

That's because it's so self-evidently true that nobody needs any further discussion to accept it.

All hail.

 

[juvenissun]

Let me get this straight. Are you saying that because there is so much research being done on the subject, then plate tectonics must not be "true"? And reciprocally, the less research that is done on a subject, the more "true" it is likely to be?

Both of your implications are false.

I just wonder that if your sense of logic is so poor, then who knows how would you use the result of your survey?

 

[Nooj]

Non-biological issues are harder to argue for people without strong background. In other words, biological related issues are easier to argue without too much understanding. I think that may be a major reason for much fewer response from YEC people. It is hard enough to understand plate tectonics. Needless to say to raise questions to against it.

People find it easier to argue about biology because they misrepresent what it really is. Biology is really, really, really hard to understand.

All the literatures people can easily find are articles that illustrated how true is the theory. But think it this way: If it is so true, why are so many people still trying to prove it and are still hesitate to claim it to be a truth rather than a theory?

This shows a basic misunderstanding of what 'theory' means. In science, a theory is an explanation that is well supported by evidence. It is the highest pinnacle of scientific explanations, because it usually combines a lot of facts into a couple of succinct truthisms (to borrow from Colbert).

Theories do not graduate to 'truth' or 'fact' level. Gravity is still a theory. It is not a truth.

 

[Mallon]

I just wonder that if your sense of logic is so poor, then who knows how would you use the result of your survey?

Please pardon us for misunderstanding what you were trying to say. Perhaps you could rephrase yourself? What did you mean by
"All the literatures people can easily find are articles that illustrated how true is the theory. But think it this way: If it is so true, why are so many people still trying to prove it and are still hesitate to claim it to be a truth rather than a theory? So, if we want to know how many problems still exist with this theory, just trying to count how many research papers are still showing up every year. It is counted by tens, if not hundreds"?

 

[juvenissun]

Please pardon us for misunderstanding what you were trying to say. Perhaps you could rephrase yourself? What did you mean by
"All the literatures people can easily find are articles that illustrated how true is the theory. But think it this way: If it is so true, why are so many people still trying to prove it and are still hesitate to claim it to be a truth rather than a theory? So, if we want to know how many problems still exist with this theory, just trying to count how many research papers are still showing up every year. It is counted by tens, if not hundreds"?

People are still studying many issues related to the theory, that does not necessary say the theory is not true. It only says the theory is still not mature and should certainly not be treated as a truth (within a domain, -- a short reply to Nooj). Every research paper is trying to address something in the theory which is not so solidly understood.

The reverse is certainly not always true. An example is that the extremely high IQ of Shernen has not been challenged at all. However, the fact that we do not see many (any) papers questioned the existence of gravity force, or how does it work, implies that there is not much left to be discussed about that truth.

 

[juvenissun]

Humour me.

The feature of Pangaea is also a puzzle (no less than the Noah's Flood, if anyone cared to compare).

There are (abundant) "evidences" that suggest the feature of supercontinent repeated itself once every few hundreds millions of years. However, this is a fact (?) of statistic odd, if the plates moved randomly as it is assumed in the current theory.

We are currently busy in trying to restore past supercontinents, but very few smart soul is trying to explain why did it repeat the process at an approximately regular time interval. The feature of supercontinent is a result of plate movement. Since we do not know why did supercontinent exit, we certainly do not know why plates move as they are doing now.

 

[Mallon]

People are still studying many issues related to the theory, that does not necessary say the theory is not true. It only says the theory is still not mature and should certainly not be treated as a truth (within a domain, -- a short reply to Nooj).

So, can you provide an example of a theory that is so well understood that it is no longer studied?

However, this is a fact (?) of statistic odd, if the plates moved randomly as it is assumed in the current theory.

Actually, the plates don't move randomly. They always move away from well-defined divergent boundaries. This is why we are able to predict future continental arrangements.

 

[juvenissun]

So, can you provide an example of a theory that is so well understood that it is no longer studied?


Actually, the plates don't move randomly. They always move away from well-defined divergent boundaries. This is why we are able to predict future continental arrangements.

Many things introduced in Chem101 or Phys101 are pretty well known. A specific example: there is not much to explore in optical microscopy except some minor improvements in applications.

What then determines how would the spreading center orient? And, the spreading center does change its orientation, position, and movement. We do not know how to predict that. More over, any long term prediction (> 10 m.y. e.g.) on plate movement is only an idea. No one would take it seriously.

 

[Mallon]

Many things introduced in Chem101 or Phys101 are pretty well known. A specific example: there is not much to explore in optical microscopy except some minor improvements in applications.

Well, if you're going to judge how sound a theory is based on the number of publications it produces, I just did Web of Science search for "optical microscopy", time-limited from 2000-2007, and got 878 results. Sounds like there's still a lot of work to be done!
I wonder if the reverse applies to the Intelligent Design hypothesis? A similar search using "intelligent design" produces only 33 hits. It MUST be well accepted!

What then determines how would the spreading center orient?

Divergent tectonic plate boundaries. You can't push the North American and Eurasian plates away from one another along a North-South transect if that's the same line their divergent boundary follows. Hence, contrary to your earlier statement, plate movement isn't random and can be predicted with some success.

And, the spreading center does change its orientation, position, and movement. We do not know how to predict that.

But that doesn't make tectonism random. There was once a time when we could not predict the eye colour of an unborn child, and now we can. That doesn't mean eye colour was previously a random trait.